GREGORIO F. AVERIA, et al. v. DOMINGO AVERIA, et al.

G.R. No. 141877. August 13, 2004

436 SCRA 459
The Statute of Frauds applies only to executory contracts and not to contracts
which are either partially or totally performed
FACTS: Macaria Francisco (Macaria) was married to Marcos Averia in which they had
six children namely: petitioners Gregorio and Teresa and respondents Domingo,
Angel, Felipe and Felimon. Upon the death of Marcos, Macaria contracted a second
marriage with Roberto Romero in which they had no children. Upon the death of
Roberto, he left three adjoining residential lots. In a Deed of Extrajudicial Partition
and Summary Settlement of the Estate of Romero, a house and lot (Extremadura
property) was apportioned to Macaria.
Macaria then filed an action for annulment of title and damages alleging that fraud
was employed by her co-heirs in which she was represented by Atty. Mario C.R.
Domingo. The case lasted for 10 years until the Court of Appeals (CA) decided in
favor of Macaria entitling her to an additional 30 square meters of the estate of
Romero. Her son Gregorio and his family and Teresas family lived with her in the
Extremadura property until her death. After six years, respondents Domingo, Angel,
Felipe and Filemon filed an action for judicial partition against petitioners Gregorio
and Teresa.
In their defense Gregorio contends that Macaria verbally sold of her Extramadura
property to him and his wife Agripina because they were the ones who spent for the
litigation expenses in the former civil case and that Agripina took care of her.
Gregorio and co-petitioner Sylvana claimed that Domingo sold to Gregorio and
Agripina his 1/6 share in the remaining portion of the property. Upon hearing,
Gregorio presented oral evidence to establish their claim of the sale of the property
to them by Macaria and also the sale of Domingo of his share. The Regional Trial
Court of (RTC) decided in favor of Gregorio. The CA however, reversed the decision
of the RTC on the ground that since the sale executed by Macaria in favor of
Gregorio was in violation of the statute of frauds and it cannot be proven by oral
evidence.
ISSUE: Whether or not parol evidence may be admitted in proving partial
performance
RULING: With respect to the application by the appellate court of the Statute of
Frauds, Gregorio contends that the same refers only to purely executory contracts
and not to partially or completely executed contracts as in the instant case. The
finding of the CA that the testimonies of Gregorios witnesses were timely objected
to by Domingo is not, as Gregorio insist, borne out in the records of the case except
with respect to his testimony.
Indeed, except for the testimony of petitioner Gregorio bearing on the verbal sale to
him by Macaria of the property, the testimonies of Gregorios witnesses Sylvanna
Vergara Clutario and Flora Lazaro Rivera bearing on the same matter were not
objected to by respondents. Just as the testimonies of Gregorio, Jr. and Veronica

Bautista bearing on the receipt by respondent Domingo on July 23, 1983 from
Gregorios wife of P5,000.00 representing partial payment of the P10,000.00
valuation of his (Domingos) 1/6 share in the property, and of the testimony of
Felimon Dagondon bearing on the receipt by Domingo of P5,000.00 from Gregorio
were not objected to. Following Article 1405 of the Civil Code, the contracts which
infringed the Statute of Frauds were ratified by the failure to object to the
presentation of parol evidence, hence, enforceable.
Contrary then to the finding of the CA, the admission of parol evidence upon which
the trial court anchored its decision in favor of respondents is not irregular and is
not foreclosed by Article 1405.
In any event, the Statute of Frauds applies only to executory contracts and not to
contracts which are either partially or totally performed. In the case at bar,
petitioners claimed that there was total performance of the contracts, full payment
of the objects thereof having already been made and the vendee Gregorio having,
even after Macarias death in 1983, continued to occupy the property until and after
the filing on January 19, 1989 of the complaint subject of the case at bar as in fact
he is still occupying it.
However it is not enough for a party to allege partial performance in order to render
the Statute of Frauds inapplicable; such partial performance must be duly proved.
But neither is such party required to establish such partial performance by
documentary proof before he could have the opportunity to introduce oral testimony
on the transaction. The partial performance may be proved by either documentary
or oral evidence.